Assuming that "every pirate is a very smart person who can rationally judge gains and losses and make choices", then "what kind of distribution scheme can the first pirate propose to maximize his own income?" It is said that people who answer this question within 20 minutes are expected to earn more than 80,000 yuan a year in the United States, and some people simply say that this is actually an introductory test for Microsoft employees.
Of course, there are many people who want to get an annual salary of 80 thousand or enter Microsoft, and there are many people who guess the questions!
Unfortunately, most of the answers are wrong. The standard answer is: 1 robber gave robber No.3 1 gold coin, and two robbers No.4 or No.5 got 97 gold coins. The allocation scheme can be written as (97,0, 1, 2,0) or (97,0, 1, 0,2).
The reasoning process is as follows: from back to front, if the robber 1-3 feeds all the sharks, only No.4 and No.5 are left, and No.5 will definitely vote against it, so that No.4 will feed the sharks and keep all the gold coins for himself. Therefore, No.4 can only rely on supporting No.3 to save his life. Knowing this, No.3 will put forward a distribution plan (100,0,0), give nothing to No.4 and No.5, and keep all the gold coins for himself, because he knows that No.4 has got nothing, but he will still vote for it, and his plan can be passed with his own vote. However, if No.2 infers the scheme to No.3, it will propose a scheme of (98,0, 1, 1), that is, give up No.3 and give No.4 and No.5 a gold coin each. Since the plan is more favorable to No.4 and No.5 than No.3, they support him and don't want him to be out and assigned by No.3 ... So No.2 took 98 gold coins. However, the scheme of No.2 will be known by 1, and 1 will put forward the scheme of (97,0, 1, 2,0) or (97,0, 1, 0,2), that is, give up No.2 and give No.3 a gold coin at the same time. Because the plan of 1 is better for No.3 and No.4 (or No.5) than No.2, they will vote for 1, plus 1, and the plan of 1 will be passed, and 97 gold coins can be easily put in the bag. This is undoubtedly the scheme that 1 can get the greatest benefit!
In the eyes of theorists, "robber sharing money" is actually a highly simplified and abstract model (non-mathematical model), but it is undoubtedly based on reality. In the mode of "robber sharing money", the key for any distributor to pass his own scheme is to consider clearly what the challenger's distribution scheme is in advance, so as to get the maximum benefit at the least cost and win over the most dissatisfied people in the challenger's distribution scheme. Think about the peasant uprisings of past dynasties, the constant court battles, the alliance betrayal everywhere in our time, the intrigue within the enterprise, and the stumbling politics at the foot of the office. Which winner doesn't adopt a method similar to "robber sharing money"?
Why do revolutionaries always look for the poor? Because they are the most frustrated people. Why does the terrorist Osama bin Laden have no market in Saudi Arabia, but he is very popular in Afghanistan, because Afghanistan is an outcast of globalization. Why do the top leaders in enterprises often abandon the number two and get on well with accountants and cashiers when they are engaged in insider control? Isn't it because the little people in the company are easy to buy, but the number two is always ambitious to replace them? ...
Many examples can be cited. For example, the first-Mover advantage and the second-Mover disadvantage in international transactions. 1 It seems most likely to feed sharks, but he firmly grasped the first-Mover advantage, which not only eliminated the death threat, but also benefited the most. Isn't this the first-Mover advantage of developed countries in the process of globalization? No.5 looks the safest, has no death threat, and can even take advantage of fishermen. But because it depends on other people's faces, it can only be divided into a small part. Isn't this a portrayal of backwardness and inferiority? It can be predicted that if China people are always at No.5 and always wait for others to make rules, the future may not be better than No.5!
At this point, I can't help but blurt out: robber logic is actually the inside story of the real world? !
But wait! Although the model of "robber sharing money" is a useful intelligence test, its application in reality is still rough. The real world is far more complicated than elaborate models.
First of all, in reality, not everyone is extremely intelligent and "absolutely rational". Returning to the model of "robber sharing money", as long as one of No.3, No.4 and No.5 deviates from the assumption of absolute wisdom and extreme rationality, the robber 1 will be thrown into the sea. Therefore, the first consideration of 1 is whether the cleverness and rationality of his robber brothers are reliable. He dare not gamble with his life with 97 gold coins.
Preference and utility and their substitution are another big problem. People in reality are so complicated that if someone's nerves deviate a little, they may show indifference to gold coins, just like watching their accomplices be thrown into the sea to feed sharks. If so, 1' s self-righteous plan will become digging its own grave!
So there is a saying that "the heart and abdomen are separated". This translated into economic language is information asymmetry. Because information asymmetry, lies and false promises are of great use, conspiracy will grow like weeds and take advantage of it. For example, No.2 can put smoke bombs on No.3, No.4 and No.5, pretending that he will definitely add another gold coin to any distribution scheme proposed by 1. If so, what will be the result?
There are more complicated situations than the above. Let's try to consider the change of distribution rules.
Usually in the real world, everyone has their own standards of fairness, so they often whisper, "Who moved my cheese?" It can be expected that once the scheme proposed by 1 does not meet its expectations, someone will make a fuss. ...
When everyone is making trouble, can 1 walk out with 97 gold coins? Most likely, the robbers will demand that the rules be revised and then redistributed. Think of Hitler's Germany before World War II!
What if a game becomes a repeated game? For example, let's make it clear that the next time we get 100 gold coins, the second robber will divide them first ... and then the third. ...
This is a bit like the US presidential election, which takes turns to govern. To put it bluntly, it is actually the system of separation of dirt and things under the democratic system.
There may be worse than this. For example, four people will think: 1 can win 97 gold coins for one person. So, they immediately formed a grand alliance against 1 and made a new rule: four people shared the gold coins equally and threw 1 into the sea alone. ...
This is Ah Q's revolutionary ideal: hold high the banner of egalitarianism, throw the rich into the abyss of death and sleep in Wu Ma's bed. ...
Without further discussion, we may agree that the reality is really too complicated. Good topics such as "giving money to robbers" may be used to test children's intelligence, but it is difficult to copy them into reality. It's like we have a map in our hand, but we may not find our way home. Although a map with the scale of 100: 100 is useless. However, you can't draw a circle on the map as if you are really going around the earth.